Read Time: 05 minutes

Allahabad High Court Monday sought reply from the Election Commission of India and Union in a PIL challenging constitutional validity of three provisions of Representation of the People Act,1950 alleging them to be violative of Articles 14 and 326 of the Indian Constitution.

The plea has been filed by S.N.Shukla, General Secretary Lok Prahari. In the plea, he had contended that Sub- Section 19 (b), clause (c) of Section 16 (1) and Section 20-A of RP Act,1950 irrationally discriminate in registration as a voter on the grounds of non-residence, crime and illegal practices.

Importantly, the plea reads that when read with the definition of ‘elector’ in Section 2(1)(e) and Sections 3 to 6 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, section 20-A of Representation of the People Act,1950 (RP Act, 1950) enables even a permanently non-resident Indian citizen to become MP/MLA and even PM/CM.              

The Matter was heard before the bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I.

Shukhla has alleged that these sections are contrary to the express intentions of the founding fathers of the Constitution and framers of the 1950 Act.

The plea reads that the existing provision in Section 19 (b) of the Act suffers from the vices of arbitrariness and irrationality.

To be noted, Section 19 provides that every person who is ordinarily resident in a constituency shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for that constituency.

Placing reliance upon the Apex Court ruling in Kuldip Nayar, (2006), the petitioner had contended that still the well-considered observations of the Constitution Bench in the case have not been acted upon by the respondents even in the last 15 years.

In Kuldip Nayar, Apex court had held that ‘it is no part of federal principle that the representatives of state must belong to that state’. Court had said that the word ‘representative of each state’ only refers to the members and do not import any further concept or requirement of residence in the state.

Challenging the validity of Clause (c) of Section 16 (1), the petitioner had contended that this provision limits disqualifications for registration in an electoral roll only to the provisions of any law relating to corrupt practices and other offences in connection with elections.

He had argued that this section does not disqualify a convict from voting under any other law, such as Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act,1951.

Therefore, seeking counter-affidavit from the Election Commission of India and Union Government, the Court has directed for the matter to be next heard on October 18, 2021.  

Case Title: Lok Prahari v. UoI &Anr.